# Michelle Phan-sued



## chaostheory (Jul 18, 2014)

Was this posted anywhere already?

Interesting..

http://m.tmz.com/#Article/2014/07/18/michelle-phan-sued-youtube-makeup-tips-dj-kaskade-deadmau5-music-copyright


----------



## zadidoll (Jul 18, 2014)

Saw it and am wondering how is it going to apply to Bethany Mota and many other vloggers who use music without authorization. Many of the top vloggers are YouTube partners which to me means YouTube turns a blind eye to copyright infringement with their partners and it's they who should be responsible.


----------



## KaitC13 (Jul 19, 2014)

Dang, Ultra Records want 100% of her YouTube profits.


----------



## zadidoll (Jul 19, 2014)

Considering that not all of the music was from their label then they won't get that. They could go after the maximum ($150,000) per violation. It remains to see if other record labels go after her as well.

Incidentally, Kaskade whose music is cited in the lawsuit is actually on her side.



> Summary: I’m not suing @*MichellePhan* + @*ultrarecords* isn’t my lapdog. I can’t do much about the lawsuit except voice support for her.


----------



## zadidoll (Jul 22, 2014)

TMZ is reporting that Michelle's team has responded with a counterclaim against Ultra and has stated she did have permission. It'll be interesting to see if she had the artists permission or the record label's permission. If it's the former then she didn't have permission but if it's the latter well then... their suit against her would be dismissed.


----------



## chaostheory (Jul 22, 2014)

Very interesting. It does seem weird that someone as much of a public figure (if you want to call her that) wouldn't ask permission considering it's common knowledge - that it's not even a 'tricky' copyright law, it's pretty straight forward. Has she taken down the videos in question?


----------



## DonnaD (Jul 22, 2014)

I think it's beyond stupid that merely playing a song in a video can even be considered copyright infringement.


----------



## zadidoll (Jul 22, 2014)

She's making money off her videos. It's not much different than a movie at the theaters having a song playing on the radio in the background of a scene. The music is heard in a movie that is earning them money so the company who owns that song heard wants their share. It'll be interesting to see what her proof is in terms of permission (her attorney claims she had permission) and how it'll impact the vlogging community and YouTube.


----------



## Allison H (Jul 22, 2014)

Hmmm, interesting. I hadn't heard about this.


----------



## Deareux (Jul 22, 2014)

On one side, they're being ridiculous in expecting 100% of her profits. They won't get it. But at the same time, I would think Michelle would be more knowledgeable about these things. It's not hard to understand that you can't use someone else's work in a vessel in which you will make money from. Even if you don't make any money, it's still the right thing to do and get permission. I, too, am curious to see if she does have the permission. But knowing what controversies she's stirred in the past, I wouldn't be surprised if there was no permission.


----------



## Kimb3rly (Jul 22, 2014)

You would think that someone on her team would have said, "This is copyright infringement and you need to correct it immediately."  Feigning ignorance in court probably won't get her very far and I seriously doubt Ultra is going to file a huge lawsuit against her without having their shit together already and knowing full well she didn't have their permission.

Soundcloud is cracking down on this as well.  I've had several friends blocked/banned for sampling other's music in their mixes.


----------



## slinka (Jul 23, 2014)

I hadn't heard about this. I'm one of those people who writes music (got the useless degree and everything, whoop! lol), so I of course I can understand Ultra going after whatever money they [and whatever artists] are entitled to- which surely isn't 100% of her profits, that's for sure. But I guess it's better from their standpoint to sue for too much rather than too little and be unable to claim the other moneys they are entitled to. Surely they wouldn't have sued without for sure knowing she had used music without permission...


----------



## tulippop (Jul 23, 2014)

Wow!  I hadn't heard about this either til now.  I'm not a fan of huge corporations but I am on the side of artists getting paid for their work.  If this is true and she didn't have permission I hope Ultra wins.  Youtube has disclaimers about posting material that does not belong to you on their site so there's no way she can feign ignorance over this since she's been posting to youtube for years and is a partner.  From what I read on a BBC article there are over 50 infringements and at $150k a pop that's a whooping $7.5 million...  I think a lot of people would sue over $7.5 million, I know I would (and then retire to a home or condo with a walk in closet and a special room just for my makeup and vanity and go backpacking all over the world).


----------



## gypsiemagic (Jul 23, 2014)

zadidoll said:


> TMZ is reporting that Michelle's team has responded with a counterclaim against Ultra and has stated she did have permission. It'll be interesting to see if she had the artists permission or the record label's permission. If it's the former then she didn't have permission but if it's the latter well then... their suit against her would be dismissed.


Yup, there are very few artists who own the rights to their own music, nearly all of them sign it all away in their recording contracts. So it actually doesn't matter at all if the artist "gave permission" the music is not their content to distribute.

The record industry is in terrible straights, so of course they would go after what is essentially Google money, I'm almost 100% sure this is just a case to test the waters and try and develop a precedent surrounding YouTube

Lesson to everybody, if you really like an artist go see them in concert, they make a much higher percentage than they do from the music in cd or digital form.


----------



## Luxx22 (Aug 18, 2014)

DonnaD said:


> I think it's beyond stupid that merely playing a song in a video can even be considered copyright infringement.


This has been like this since computers were invented.


----------



## Luxx22 (Aug 18, 2014)

tulippop said:


> Wow!  I hadn't heard about this either til now.  I'm not a fan of huge corporations but I am on the side of artists getting paid for their work.  If this is true and she didn't have permission I hope Ultra wins.  Youtube has disclaimers about posting material that does not belong to you on their site so there's no way she can feign ignorance over this since she's been posting to youtube for years and is a partner.  From what I read on a BBC article there are over 50 infringements and at $150k a pop that's a whooping $7.5 million...  I think a lot of people would sue over $7.5 million, I know I would (and then retire to a home or condo with a walk in closet and a special room just for my makeup and vanity and go backpacking all over the world).


I totally agree! - Can't take someone else's hard work, just to make your work look and sound better.


----------



## zadidoll (Aug 18, 2014)

I looked into why Ultra didn't contact YouTube via take down notice and apparently YouTube either sided with Michelle (Ultra claims she filed counter-notifications) or YouTube failed to remove the videos. From the original lawsuit:
 



> _Phan, through her agents, has consented to jurisdiction in this District by submitting a Counter-Notification to YouTube, LLC (“YouTube”), in response to a take-down notice sent to YouTube on Plaintiffs ’ behalf._


So I have to wonder WHY isn't Ultra going after YouTube? If copyright infringements were incurred by Michelle and take down notices were sent to YouTube but YouTube refuses to do anything about it then the matter lies squarely on YouTube for not enforcing the copyright holder's requests.


----------



## Angelalh (Aug 19, 2014)

gypsiemagic said:


> Yup, there are very few artists who own the rights to their own music, nearly all of them sign it all away in their recording contracts. So it actually doesn't matter at all if the artist "gave permission" the music is not their content to distribute.
> 
> The record industry is in terrible straights, so of course they would go after what is essentially Google money, I'm almost 100% sure this is just a case to test the waters and try and develop a precedent surrounding YouTube
> 
> Lesson to everybody, if you really like an artist go see them in concert, they make a much higher percentage than they do from the music in cd or digital form.


yes but they also will not receive tour support unless they sell a certain amount of cda

i used to dabble in the music industry a bit i was a promoter, interned at a label, went on small tours with bands

it was mostly all smaller bands still all nationals but small venue types

especially if you like a more non mainstream not played on the radio 24/7 band

buy their album

go see them on tour

buy a tshirt (they make THE MOST MONEY from tshirts so this is important)

you truly do not understand how little most of them make alot have real jobs when at home!


----------

